On the usage of statistics on the OH

[BaltimoreTerp]

This is getting so blown out of proportion it's not funny. I expect people like BTerp to get all bent out of shape because he's made an OH career out of falling on his sword in these kinds of situations, but seriously, you of all people?

At least the expectation is mutual.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Does anyone remember GWRBI? wasn't that worthless stat thrown around for a few years as though it had anything to do with being clutch. The implication was that it showed someone being a pressure player when in reality, it could have been the first run driven in, in a game won 16-15 by the team that never lost the lead.

That's an example of someone using a stat without any context, which is something nobody wants to see.

[Tony-OH]

It becomes a reaction to the attitude by the still-majority of those around the sport (both inside and as fans and media) that is being displayed here. That the people who create these numbers don't actually view this as a game played by people, but as some form of math equation. That is an absolute falsehood that should be discouraged, and that "attitude" is one way of doing so. It says, "Well, if you are going to act that way towards me, than I will act that way towards you."

Thanks for explaining the "Revenge of the Nerds" Syndrome better than I ever could.

The only people who get offended by being called a nerd is well...a Nerd who's had a bad experience with non-nerds. I've had people call me a nerd because I have a job that I sit in front of computer all day, I run a website, and I generally enjoy the statistical side of baseball. I bet some would call us nerds when we sit around during Hangout nights and talk about how bad a fielder Ken Gerhart was or that we can remember when Jeff Stone was acquired. Guess what? I'm not offended because I know I'm not really a nerd. I laugh it off because I know who I am and I haven't met a person yet who knows me personally that would come up with that assessment.

But you know what? There's nothing wrong with being a nerd that follows and enjoys baseball, even if that means they may spend more times doing calculations then watching the games. I'm all for anyone finding whatever enjoyment they get out of baseball, whether it's from the experience of going to a baseball game or whether it's calculating the most insanely difficult equation while trying to find the holy grail of baseball stats.

It's all the same game! Everyone finds ways to enjoy the game the way they want. In fact I would argue that's what makes baseball so great.

Getting all bent out of shape over the nerd statement is just ridiculous. We spend hours and hours on a message board. Guess what? We all have a nerd side. Deal with it!

[Tony-OH]

Nah, i could care less...Its just very hypocritical on your part to complain about arrogance of one group and then turn into a name caller yourself. The irony is hilarious to me.

First off, I never complained about an entire group. I complained about the people that do such things. There are a ton of saber guys that don't do those sorts of things and I would argue the vast majority of people on OH, don't act like that.

The only thing that's hilarious though is you acting like a flower. I never knew you were so sensitive.

Maybe you and BTerp can go find a support group and talk about the day you were offended by the term nerd while reading it on a message board that you spend hours on.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Thanks for explaining the "Revenge of the Nerds" Syndrome better than I ever could.

The only people who get offended by being called a nerd is well...a Nerd who's had a bad experience with non-nerds. I've had people call me a nerd because I have a job that I sit in front of computer all day, I run a website, and I generally enjoy the statistical side of baseball. I bet some would call us nerds when we sit around during Hangout nights and talk about how bad a fielder Ken Gerhart was or that we can remember when Jeff Stone was acquired. Guess what? I'm not offended because I know I'm not really a nerd. I laugh it off because I know who I am and I haven't met a person yet who knows me personally that would come up with that assessment.

But you know what? There's nothing wrong with being a nerd that follows and enjoys baseball, even if that means they may spend more times doing calculations then watching the games. I'm all for anyone finding whatever enjoyment they get out of baseball, whether it's from the experience of going to a baseball game or whether it's calculating the most insanely difficult equation while trying to find the holy grail of baseball stats.

It's all the same game! Everyone finds ways to enjoy the game the way they want. In fact I would argue that's what makes baseball so great.

Getting all bent out of shape over the nerd statement is just ridiculous. We spend hours and hours on a message board. Guess what? We all have a nerd side. Deal with it!

That's exactly what I'm saying. It is others that seem to have an issue with that idea, and I'd like to see it stop.

[waroriole]

First off, I never complained about an entire group. I complained about the people that do such things. There are a ton of saber guys that don't do those sorts of things and I would argue the vast majority of people on OH, don't act like that.

The only thing that's hilarious though is you acting like a flower. I never knew you were so sensitive.

Maybe you and BTerp can go find a support group and talk about the day you were offended by the term nerd while reading it on a message board that you spend hours on.

:rofl::rofl:

[BaltimoreTerp]

First off, I never complained about an entire group. I complained about the people that do such things. There are a ton of saber guys that don't do those sorts of things and I would argue the vast majority of people on OH, don't act like that.

The only thing that's hilarious though is you acting like a flower. I never knew you were so sensitive.

Maybe you and BTerp can go find a support group and talk about the day you were offended by the term nerd while reading it on a message board that you spend hours on.

For someone who I've seen ban people for even the appearance that they may have insulted him, I'm very surprised you, of all people, is this insensitive towards the issue.

As you yourself basically said, it isn't the words themselves but the attitude behind them. It even belongs in the same vein as your signature, "Actions speak louder than words": so do attitudes.

[Satyr3206]

Stats can tell some of the story, but not all. Therefore, by definition, they aren't a be all, tell all, barometer. But some think so.

[Tony-OH]

I agree, and I'm not trying to suggest that people are stupid if they use the "wrong" stats. I can see how it might have come across that way, and I apologise for that, because it was far from my intention.

My problem is more with people who use stats without understanding them. It's fine to use OPS, so long as you understand its flaws and don't look at it as anything more than what it is. Same for WAR, and even BA or really any stat.

My goal with the original post was to address that problem, and then present an alternative that actually does attempt to measure what OPS only estimates. I also tried to explain what wOBA is, so that people could have an understanding of it and feel more comfortable using it.

Still, any stat, no matter how good it is, falls apart at least a little when taken out of context. As I said in response to Frobby earlier:

"There's no real "right" way to evaluate players. wOBA is pretty much the best we have at the moment, and that only covers offense, and even then you still have to provide context (like the example of Scott sitting against tough lefties). Context is crucial in making judgments of any kind, and yes, it is entirely important to recognize that. We have a few stats that give general pictures, and there are so many more that provide context. We can't ever boil statistical analysis down to one or two super-stats, because it just doesn't work like that."

The context I speak of there can refer to anything, whether in the form of visual judgments, common sense, environment, or whatever you want that isn't reflected in stats.

I take issue with this attitude, personally. Statistics exist to measure on a large scale what we ourselves can only measure on a small scale. The human memory is flawed.

This isn't a very good example, but the second baseball game I ever went to was when I was five years old, and I saw a Braves pitcher give up five runs to the Blue Jays in a losing effort. Based on what I saw, I concluded that that pitcher was not very good. Imagine my surprise when I got a bit older and I discovered that John Smoltz was considered to be a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher.

The truth is, in that game, no, Smoltz was not the better pitcher. Over the course of his career he was, but there isn't enough time in the world for me to watch every game John Smoltz ever pitched. So I had to ignore what my eyes told me that one time and trust that the statistical evaluation was more accurate for the large scale.

Yes, the eye test might be better for evaluating small-scale performances, and it certainly for things statistics can't do, like tell you how tight the rotation is on a minor leaguer's breaking ball. But for large-scale evaluations, you just can't rely on what you see.

There are ways outside of stats to explain what the stats tell you, and why they might not mean what they appear to mean. They are far from a perfect science. But to claim they don't have meaning is foolish.

Additionally, resorting to name-calling and caricatures is childish and, at least to me, makes your argument seem less valid.

Basically, the important thing in any sort of evaluation is to recognize the limitations of whatever evaluative tools you choose to use, and preferably use tools with less limitations in the areas you seek to evaluate.

In all my bickering, I didn't want this post to go without a response. I don't think we necessarily disagree. You've done a good job in this thread and I apologize for allowing it to get offtrack.

In the end, I like the OPS stat because it's get the general point across and can be understood easily by the widest range of baseball fans. That does not mean there are not more accurate indicators or that it should ever be used in a vacuum (no stat should).

I also don't think stats should ever be ignored. They are a valuable tool in any baseball fans analysis and in the end, it's incumbent upon each person to decide how far into the weeds they want to go.

[BaltimoreTerp]

In all my bickering, I didn't want this post to go without a response. I don't think we necessarily disagree. You've done a good job in this thread and I apologize for allowing it to get offtrack.

In the end, I like the OPS stat because it's get the general point across and can be understood easily by the widest range of baseball fans. That does not mean there are not more accurate indicators or that it should ever be used in a vacuum (no stat should).

I also don't think stats should ever be ignored. They are a valuable tool in any baseball fans analysis and in the end, it's incumbent upon each person to decide how far into the weeds they want to go.

Exactly Tony. I agree 100%.

[Tony-OH]

For someone who I've seen ban people for even the appearance that they may have insulted him, I'm very surprised you, of all people, is this insensitive towards the issue.

As you yourself basically said, it isn't the words themselves but the attitude behind them. It even belongs in the same vein as your signature, "Actions speak louder than words": so do attitudes.

I'll respond to this through PM as to not sidebar this any longer.

[Sports Guy]

First off, I never complained about an entire group. I complained about the people that do such things. There are a ton of saber guys that don't do those sorts of things and I would argue the vast majority of people on OH, don't act like that.

The only thing that's hilarious though is you acting like a flower. I never knew you were so sensitive.

Maybe you and BTerp can go find a support group and talk about the day you were offended by the term nerd while reading it on a message board that you spend hours on.

Good to see maturity is involved in this.

I repeat, I don't care that you used the term.

I just find it ironic that you are pointing out the attitudes of others, yet you clearly have one of your own. Double standard much?

[SrMeowMeow]

Thanks for explaining the "Revenge of the Nerds" Syndrome better than I ever could.

The only people who get offended by being called a nerd is well...a Nerd who's had a bad experience with non-nerds. I've had people call me a nerd because I have a job that I sit in front of computer all day, I run a website, and I generally enjoy the statistical side of baseball. I bet some would call us nerds when we sit around during Hangout nights and talk about how bad a fielder Ken Gerhart was or that we can remember when Jeff Stone was acquired. Guess what? I'm not offended because I know I'm not really a nerd. I laugh it off because I know who I am and I haven't met a person yet who knows me personally that would come up with that assessment.

But you know what? There's nothing wrong with being a nerd that follows and enjoys baseball, even if that means they may spend more times doing calculations then watching the games. I'm all for anyone finding whatever enjoyment they get out of baseball, whether it's from the experience of going to a baseball game or whether it's calculating the most insanely difficult equation while trying to find the holy grail of baseball stats.

It's all the same game! Everyone finds ways to enjoy the game the way they want. In fact I would argue that's what makes baseball so great.

Getting all bent out of shape over the nerd statement is just ridiculous. We spend hours and hours on a message board. Guess what? We all have a nerd side. Deal with it!

This is...awful. Come on. The bolded? What does that even mean? So "nerds" who've had experiences being tormented by people for being "nerds" are somehow not allowed to complain about being called nerds? Do you think that's rare? Do you think nerd in this context isn't pejorative? Honestly, this is a pretty ugly post.

[sangar]

Stats can tell some of the story, but not all. Therefore, by definition, they aren't a be all, tell all, barometer. But some think so.

Thank you.

Someone here said "numbers don't lie". This statement shows a lack of understanding in how numbers work. One could argue that the numbers don't lie but can be manipulated to do so. This too is untrue. I've been as far as Linear Algebra, which is above Calc 3, and I've barely scratched the surface. I have a friend who holds a PhD in math and works for NASA who will argue that numbers do in fact lie. Unless one believes that 2+2=5, which he can prove.

The point my rambling is trying to make is that numbers will never tell the whole story, not even about math.

[Tony-OH]

This is...awful. Come on. The bolded? What does that even mean? So "nerds" who've had experiences being tormented by people for being "nerds" are somehow not allowed to complain about being called nerds? Do you think that's rare? Do you think nerd in this context isn't pejorative? Honestly, this is a pretty ugly post.

See Sports Guy and BTerp, they can help you with the support group. Get a grip man.

I'm not overly surprised that a guy who chose the handle "SrMeowMeow" is offended by the nerd term. Nope, not at all....:laughlol: